Qve45 German K43

CanadianAR said:
If there was any solid way to determine dating the camo helmets industry would be all over it.
Click to expand...

Actually there is - it is called X-ray Flouresence Spectrometry or (XRF). It is non-destructive elemental analysis technique for quantification of nearly any element from Magnesium to Uranium. To put it very simply, it is a process that identifies the individual elements present in a sample.

Here's how it works -
https://www.bruker.com/products/x-ray-diffraction-and-elemental-analysis/handheld-xrf/how-xrf-works.html

So what does this have to do with WW2 German helmets or rifles? Once you visually identify the paint is consistent with WW2 era paint using the blacklight, further analysis using XRF will reveal the elemental chemical composition of the paint. Chemical formulas of WW2 German paints are documented and can be compared to the results of the XRF test. If they do not match or if there is an element present that is not consistent with WW2 chemical formulas then the artifact is suspect or an outright forgery.

73
Brookwood
 
Brookwood said:
Actually there is - it is called X-ray Flouresence Spectrometry or (XRF). It is non-destructive elemental analysis technique for quantification of nearly any element from Magnesium to Uranium. To put it very simply, it is a process that identifies the individual elements present in a sample.

Here's how it works -
https://www.bruker.com/products/x-ray-diffraction-and-elemental-analysis/handheld-xrf/how-xrf-works.html

So what does this have to do with WW2 German helmets or rifles? Once you visually identify the paint is consistent with WW2 era paint using the blacklight, further analysis using XRF will reveal the elemental chemical composition of the paint. Chemical formulas of WW2 German paints are documented and can be compared to the results of the XRF test. If they do not match or if there is an element present that is not consistent with WW2 chemical formulas then the artifact is suspect or an outright forgery.

73
Brookwood
Click to expand...

LOL!

Andrew, ask Hambone and MrFarb about how awesome XRF is.... ;)
 
Desert_Fox said:
LOL!

Andrew, ask Hambone and MrFarb about how awesome XRF is.... ;)
Click to expand...

That is not a fair comparison. In my former line of work I used it to gain insight on artifacts and find the truth, not make a sale or for profit. I also used it in repeatable lab conditions, with trained technicians and had the results authenticated by third party inspection. Granted I did not use it on WW2 German helmets/cammo paint, but I did use it to analyze the chemical make up of conventional paintings. The point is this - ANY forensic test will provide ANY result if you have a biased intent before hand and most critically if the test conditions (including an understanding of how to use the equipment and interpret the results) are not correct. Based on what I've read about the vendor selling the SS helmets, it appears to me that their methods, interpretations and conclusions were not consistent with any accepted museum or other professional investigative forensic analysis practice. They exploited the capabilities of the technology, relied on the un-informed public being impressed by the process and used skewed 'data' to authenticate forgeries. Simply put, they used flawed scientific process to make a buck and ruined the reputation of the technology for the collector community. Under the proper conditions, used by trained people and having the findings independently confirmed, the use of XRF technology is a very useful tool and in this case, would contribute to the authentication of a historical and valuable firearm.

73
Brookwood
 
Last edited:
Brookwood said:
That is not a fair comparison. In my former line of work I used it to gain insight on artifacts and find the truth, not make a sale or for profit. I also used it in repeatable lab conditions, with trained technicians and had the results authenticated by third party inspection. Granted I did not use it on WW2 German helmets/cammo paint, but I did use it to analyze the chemical make up of conventional paintings. The point is this - ANY forensic test will provide ANY result if you have a biased intent before hand and most critically if the test conditions (including an understanding of how to use the equipment and interpret the results) are not correct. Based on what I've read about the vendor selling the SS helmets, it appears to me that their methods, interpretations and conclusions were not consistent with any accepted museum or other professional investigative forensic analysis practice. They exploited the capabilities of the technology, relied on the un-informed public being impressed by the process and used skewed 'data' to authenticate forgeries. Simply put, they used flawed scientific process to make a buck and ruined the reputation of the technology for the collector community. Under the proper conditions, used by trained people and having the findings independently confirmed, the use of XRF technology is a very useful tool and in this case, would contribute to the authentication of a historical and valuable firearm.

73
Brookwood
Click to expand...

Brockwood..

I didn't mean to denigrate you, or the technology per-say, but as you have pointed out, in the Helmet collecting community, the tech has lost all credibility. I guess if one were to have the rifle paint examined for ones own personal verification, it could be a neat endeavor, but many will not trust the findings in the end anyway.... Plus, as I understand, it's not cheap either?

The biggest problem I see with it in terms of using it to verify a certain paints/chemical compositions from a certain 12 year period in history, is; which helmets/paint do you use as the control group? How does one know if the control samples are not 50's mock ups, or if it can pinpoint that it is a period paint, does it mean its from a Nazi factory, or from a 1946 batch made in Czechoslovakia, or Norway, or...?

Anyway, the K43 is cool with or without the paint. :)
 
XRF. Oh my. Lol

I suppose you could blast it, but as Darryl points out, no one in the third reich collecting community would look at it with any respect. And again, who's to say the correct paint wasn't applied after the fact.
I agree you could likely narrow t down to period paint vs modem, but I feel like with my examinations, I can confidently say it's old, but whether applied by a scared kid in Mar/Apr 1945 as the russian and American armies bore down, or using period paint 5 years later.....even xrf can't do that.

I believe it to be correct and war time applied BUT I would never use it as a selling feature or anything of that nature. And to be honest I don't even think it would be a selling feature.
Given the chance at sweet k43, all the same but camo or no camo, I'd pick no camo. Red glue laminate is already so nice. Hahah

If I ever have the chance to have it tested cheaply or free, I would do it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom